| 12:04 am on May 10, 2003 (gmt 0)|
sj result simple sucks cause it opened door to spammers and locked out honest hard works... May God help us that sj result does not fully roll over to www!
| 12:07 am on May 10, 2003 (gmt 0)|
oh. harmonic convergence is coming into being.
there really is a god.
hummmmmmm hummmmmmmmmmm hummmmmm
oh. time for the orielly spin zone. gotta run. have fun all. go san antonio.....
| 12:11 am on May 10, 2003 (gmt 0)|
| 12:25 am on May 10, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>sj result simple sucks cause it opened door to spammers and locked out honest hard works... May God help us that sj result does not fully roll over to www!
Yes. Truly bad. Almost unbearably putrid. OK, Google isn't quite that bad yet. However, they are getting worse.
| 12:28 am on May 10, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Quote out of a carnitas recipe:
|The pork is first simmered for a long time to make it really soft and then braised in the oven to make it crispy. Since the recipe is very simple and does not involve any chili sauces everyone likes carnitas. You can add the heat on your own as you eat it |
- long time
- but then really soft, after crispy (i.e. as you like it)
- no chili, so everybody likes it
- add the heat at your own
One I doubt:
the recipe is very simple
| 12:38 am on May 10, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>>But the same punters are out there looking for the same stuff, so now they're finding it somewhere else. I don't think I've broken any rules, but for the same searches I'm seeing traffic from yahoo - but not from google.<<
Yeah, all our sites are down on visitors from Google too but well up on other search engines, including a whole pile of visitors coming through from AltaVista which we very rarely see. There's no change in our positionings on the other SEs - we do very well on most, but don't see a lot of visitors. Maybe searchers suddenly aren't finding what they want on Google and are trying out other SEs?
| 12:41 am on May 10, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I think sj and www2 are a maggot (for it currently deserves that description) to catch a worm (or maybe the other way around).
I have never seen www2 to www migration take so long. So it is obvious, the www valve has not yet been turned (and may not be?). That sj was leaked and the www2 migration happened especially for Google techs to see what was said here (and elsewhere).
I wish I had enough money to buy Google. Because that is what I would do each dance time. First time, return just ffa pages. Next time, just hidden text pages. Then adult and email harvester / bulk send software sites masquerading as anything and everything else site. Then switch the real results on line onto www just as the prozac consumption rate here was at it's highest :-)
| 12:49 am on May 10, 2003 (gmt 0)|
So GrinninGordon - you reckon Google owns Prozac - and this last week has just been a Prozac sales promotion?
| 12:53 am on May 10, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Backward links changed on -sj, -fi and www2, but still none from the April deepcrawl that I can notice. I guess the 617k number will change when/if backlinks are actually updated with April deepcrawl data.
| 12:55 am on May 10, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Maybe. But I think this is actually a mind control technique so we all walk along the street and every 2 minutes have a nervous twitch and say "G,g,g,g,g,g,g,g,google."
| 12:55 am on May 10, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>I think sj and www2 are a maggot (for it currently deserves that description) to catch a worm (or maybe the other way around).
On behalf of maggots everywhere, I demand you withdraw that libelous comparison of them to this Google update. At least maggots serve a useful purpose in nature.
| 1:05 am on May 10, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I agree with steveb on the links. The backlinks have changed on www2,www3, but none from april crawl yet.
| 1:09 am on May 10, 2003 (gmt 0)|
With a few hundred PHD's on staff - the "Prozac hypothesis" is as viable as any other put forward in the last week!
At the Sydney Australia SES conference about 6 weeks ago, Omid Kordestani of Google explained at length the 'monetization of search" I think you picked their new strategy!
| 1:11 am on May 10, 2003 (gmt 0)|
rfgdxm1: the past week has left you completely shattered hasn't it?.
| 1:13 am on May 10, 2003 (gmt 0)|
GrinninGordon: the dance has NOT started yet. All we got to see was the internal workings of Google, which so far has hapened away from the public eye. Don't u think that updating such a large Index is an incremental process?. The dance as we know it is imminent. Cmon guys...relax wil ya!
| 1:22 am on May 10, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Hi there GoogleGuy,
theBear also had some beef for lunch today and I do love Salmon.
Now if we can just get all these folks to take a chill pill things will resolve in time.
| 1:27 am on May 10, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>rfgdxm1: the past week has left you completely shattered hasn't it?.
Actually, the truth is my sites were only slightly dinged. While on the most important SERP the main site fell from #4 to off the radar, for some inexplicable reason the other site of mine went to #7 on that SERP. If what is on -sj now is the final update, I would only expect a small drop in traffic. This really isn't just a personal reaction based on how my sites are doing. Just disappointing to see Google doing such a rotten job overall, and their quality drop this badly. If what is on -sj is the next update, I'll be switching my home page from Google to Alltheweb.
| 2:12 am on May 10, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Links on SJ have changed.
link:www.yahoo.com = 617,000 (not 384K anymore!)
| 2:14 am on May 10, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I'm glad they found Yahoo's
Now, if only they could find my missing links.............
| 2:20 am on May 10, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Now, if they could only find my missing site....
| 2:25 am on May 10, 2003 (gmt 0)|
What's the chance of Yahoo having fewer backlinks this month than last? Since many of us are missing links we know are valid and Yahoo is still short, expect more fluctuations on sj
| 2:28 am on May 10, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Yeah, -sj links changed: THEY DROPPED FOR ME from 680 to 650! How can that be? If anything I've added a ton since the feb update that -sj was originally using.
| 2:53 am on May 10, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I am showing just a few PR2 links?
Down from dozens of MUCH higher PR links...
So don't feels so bad.
And PR2's are showing? What gives?
| 2:58 am on May 10, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Be thankful you only lost 30!
I'm missing 290 previous and I also did a lot of work last month adding content and links.
Oh were, Oh were have my links gone!
| 3:01 am on May 10, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I think high PR sites will get updated first then low pr ones.
| 3:15 am on May 10, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>>Now, if they could only find my missing site....
reneeword, you sure it's not just your hompage? I appear to be making a comeback on -sj on other pages but my homepage is GONE.
| 3:40 am on May 10, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Based on your dance site I would have to say, you know best!
| 3:46 am on May 10, 2003 (gmt 0)|
WOW to those of you who lost tons of backlinks, I am sorry to hear that...I'll quit whining about losing 30 :(...It's just that this whole update is looking so bad, everything freaks me out now...2 days ago, I was optimistic when my homepage reappeared and then I started to moving up in SERPS, and then I start going backwards while I think they're in the process of adding more good stuff rather than taking away good stuff....I guess I'll join the "Chill Camp".....
| 3:47 am on May 10, 2003 (gmt 0)|
You are correct. It is just my homepage. I see two new pages on sj that were never in the index before. (Is this significant in anyway?) P.S. Thanks for the company!
I'm also getting crazy results when I search the data centers for my best keyword phrase:
sj shows an internal page at #23,
ex, va,dc,ab and zu show me at #9 for a current version of my homepage,
in and cw show me at #9 with a very old version of my homepage
fi shows me at #4 for a completely different internal page
| 3:51 am on May 10, 2003 (gmt 0)|
For me some small but encouraging changes in backlinks on -sj, which has got to be good news after the lack of movement over the past week. Yahoo's links are back up to 617000, and my own site was reincluded a few days ago after disappearing like so many sites, and now the backlinks have gone up a very little. Could it be that links are slowly beginning to be factored in?
| 4:11 am on May 10, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>>Is this significant in anyway?
Yes, you're alive.
This whole thing reaks of an "end-around". Wacked-out dance, we're freaking, other SEs are freaking, spammers are freaking, then "BAM", killer new index & Deepcrawl starts immediately.
Cheap way to incorporate some automatic spam elimination. If no one has time to optimize after results, who sticks? Solid sites that were cleanly optimized in the first place.